If in 1090 we keep οὐκ ἔσει τὰν αὔριον, it is best to read here with Arndt. ἢ σέ γ᾽ εὐνάτειρά τις. On the view that in 1090 τὰν ἐπιοῦσαν ἔσει was a probable emendation （see Appendix on that verse）, I proposed to read here, ἢ σέ γ᾽ ἔφυσε πατὴρ ι Λοξίας; If the σε of ἔφυσε had once been lost （through a confusion with the preceding σέ）, ΓΕΦΥΠΑΤΗΡ might easily have become ΓΕΘΥΓΑΤΗΡ: the τις （which is not in L） would have been inserted for metre's sake, and the change of Λοξίας to Λοξίου would have followed. （It cannot be objected that a mention of the mother is required here, since, as the context shows, the foremost thought is, “what god was thy sire? ”） It would be a very forced way of taking ἢ σέ γέ τις θυγάτηρ to make θυγάτηρ depend on μακραιώνων, and Λοξίου on πελασθεῖσ᾽ （i.e., “some daughter of the Nymphs wedded to Pan, or haply to Loxias ”）. Nor does it seem easy to take θυγάτηρ with τᾶν μακραιώνων in both clauses （ “some daughter of the Nymphs, wedded to Pan, or perhaps to Loxias ”）. On the whole, I now prefer Arndt's correction. -For σέ γε in the second alternative, cp. Soph. Phil. 1116πότμος σε δαιμόνων τάδ᾽, ι οὐδὲ σέ γε δόλος ἔσχεν.Hdt. 7.10 （ad fin.） διαφορεύμενον ἤ κου ἐν γῇ τῇ Ἀθηναίων ἢ σέ γε ἐν τῇ Λακεδαιμονίων.